Tannochsidebear

What is always forgotten is that Timmy's own equaliser a couple of minutes before the winner was equally if not more dubious than Juve's. Timmy - The masters of rewriting history.

Hope your right, gisabeer, he was truly awful and also prone to irregular errors.

The SPL have just announced the referee line up for next weekend's games, and the bad news is that we are getting our first game with Steve "The cheat" Conroy at Rugby Park on Saturday lunchtime. Here's hoping the game is won quickly and easily and he is not allowed to influence proceedings. His record of poor decision-making in officiating Rangers games is well documented, and we should have ensured we are never faced with him again. A lot of the current crop of refs are just poor, but Conroy takes things to a new low level, and if we are to be believed that he acts with impartiality, he must be really unfortunate that his mistakes always seem to go against us, and that it is purely coincidental that he is a self-confessed fan of our main rivals.

Got to be positive. We quite often find that after a damaging International defeat to the morale of our players, we struggle in the next game. I actually agreed with monkey-heid's after match comment that with so many players away and the opposition having 2 weeks to plan and prepare, it was always going to be a difficult game. Same applies to us and 'Well. The players who were poorest IMO on Saturday were Miller and Davis, who both ran their legs off twice in 4 days in vain for their countries, and came back to their club knackered and put in a poor shift. That can happen, and I would have preferred Walter to rest them on Sat and play Naismith and Novo instead to freshen things up, but he chose to go with them and that was his call.

A Rangers victory of course!!

Thats a very negative attitude to take. The sort of attitude I hear in accusatory posts about the RST in fact. There is no point in the RST presenting new proposals to the club as they never do anything about them. As far as I am aware there are 20 board positions within the RST. Every year there are at least one or two changes, 2008 being the big exception of course when about half the board changed. I know your opinion about it being a non-democratic clique ran by one man (not the chairman either) is shared by many many bears, both from within and outwith the trust itself, but to admit defeat and turn your back on it is surely no way to get them to change their ways, if indeed those accusations are well-founded in the first place. As for saying the list was all dead-ends, I have to say that sounds a little unresearched and out of date. Whilst not over-confident that many of these organisations will achieve their goals, I would say that they are better run and organised now than they have ever been, and a bit more savvy to fans desires than they used to be. My opinion of this has come from actual discussions with both the Association and the Assembly over the last year, and my opinion of both has changed for the better during this time. Also to be taken into consideration is the fact that we have a new chairman who hopefully will want input from these organisations. Dont get me wrong, I am not knocking the message boards as a valuable discussion forum and for great ideas to be banded about within them, but the drawback is that there is nowhere for that debate to go unless it is via one of the organisations I mentioned. Discussing the actual matches is great and is what most of us like doing best, but when the debate changes to the running of the club, that is when bears with some great ideas and who feel passionately about such matters need to get involved and not just shout from the sidelines. I would respectfully suggest that if you are seriously wanting to make things happen, you ditch the "it'll never change" attitude and get stuck into whatever organisation you choose. As you say, you know how the RST AGM works, and you will therefore know that you are very able to put your hand up and raise an issue that you want discussed, and see what the membership in attendance feel about it. If they are in agreement with you, you easily get a policy either adopted or changed. If not, you have to accept the democratic process and understand your view might be a minority one. I have never been a board member of the RST, nor have I known any of them outside of meeting them at RST functions, but I have attended the meetings, and have put my hand up and got things discussed, sometimes resulting in policy, sometimes not. I have been to meetings of the Assembly and the Association over the years as well, and a similar democratic process appears to be in place. I attend my RSC meetings every month and hear items from the floor get passed or outvoted depending on the democratic vote. With the greatest respect, you and I are never going to get anything changed at our club by just sitting in front of the computer having a wee chat about a particular topic, are we?

Walter used to always say during the 9IAR era that the league table was only worth looking at once everybody had played everybody home and away, ie at the halfway stage. I have always tended to agree with that, as a difficult run of fixtures for one compared with an easier set of fixtures for another can make things look a bit biased. Before the halfway stage, you just dont want to be too far adrift, but a small points lead is probably easily dismissed as well.

Cant wait for Wednesday now. I love getting the last domestic game out of the way and knowing that the next game will be to watch the Rangers take on a European challenge again. And of course a couple of local beers and a good day out helps as well!!

I wasn't aware of that Bluedell, and I agree that there are certainly useful to members who cannot attend the AGM, indeed I have discussed this with someone from the RST board very recently about the 2009 intentions.

I understand how you feel, and if you felt strongly enough about the issue of a seat on the board overtaking all other issues that you felt were more important to the fans, then fair enough. Personally, I have not always agreed with every decision the RST took, but I do believe in democratic decision making, and I am glad that the trust gives me, and you whilst you were still a member, the chance to debate this at the AGM and to vote accordingly in line with your feelings on that subject. Was it your good self that proposed the motion at an AGM a couple of years ago to break all contact with the club? If not, it only proves you were not alone, as the speaker on that day passionately explained that in his opinion the club could not be trusted to deliver the board seat and we should not be dealing with the untrustable Murray/Bain. That motion was overwhelmingly defeated however as the majority of fans felt that we had to maintain contact, however untrustworthy, with the club to try to ensure policy changes over a wide number of issues. I do disagree with you however on the membership point. I would think that for an independant organisation, run without payment by a group of 20 volunteers, to have a fee-paying membership number that allows it to live while giving every member a share in the club, is doing ok. You must be aware that the Rangers support is a very apathetic bunch in general. Our traditional upbringing is not to moan and air your dirty linen in public. The majority of the support in attendance at Ibrox most weeks probably still buy the Daily Record and vote Labour, despite many years of showing the anti-Rangers agendas operated by these organisations. To then suggest that it should be easy to get say 10,000 Rangers supporters all to pay a fee every year to join up into an organisation not run by the club itself, and mainly critical of the running of the club is rather over-ambitious in my opinion. You watch the forums, MF, so you know that if you put up any subject in a thread, from TBB to Murray to Kenny Miller, you get such a range of opinion in the discussion, all from Rangers supporters who only want the best for the club, that to expect a very large number to sign up to an organisation with such a wide-ranging topic list is well-nigh impossible. There are many ways to try to get things done to change our club for the better. The RST is one very viable route. The Assembly is another. The Association is yet another. You can get to the club via your RSC meetings. Then we have the Sponsors meetings with the club. We have the debenture holders meetings. We have the Rangers AGM. I would like to think projects like STS have its place also. What doesn't work, is just having a rant on a fans messageboard, or with your pals in the pub or at work. Whilst I admit to doing all of these on a regular basis, I know that I can try to make things happen better by choosing from the first list. All of us who have Rangers best interests at heart, and really want things to change, must choose to get involved with one of the options on the first list. Otherwise we may feel better for a while by sticking with the second list, but nothing will change, or at least you can have no say in what does change.

I agree that minutes should be available to members, as should copies of accounts etc be available to download on a members only section of the website. It maybe something that comes up at this year's AGM.

I watched the thread MF is talking about on RM with interest, and it is as he says. He continually asked a RST board member (the treasurer I think) about membership numbers, and ended up getting his life membership refunded without the question being answered. It does seem strange because I met a RST board member recently and asked about membership and got an approximate number told to me straight away without hesitation, even split between life members and renewing members, although it was hoped that the renewal numbers would increase as the season kicked in (this was around the opening day of the season) and as the AGM came round. The number seemed reasonably accurate to me and in line with what I was expecting. My own take on the 5000 was that that number was around the total membership cards issued at that time. Obviously there have been many that have not renewed over the years, and that needs to be taken into account. Whatever the number, it still remains the largest active membership of a Rangers group around. The Assembly might have 30,000 members, but they dont pay to join and as we all know, most dont even know they are members, and many (like myself and my son) are counted twice as being members of 2 clubs. I am not here to defend the RST by any means, but I am a member and have been since the day it was formed on 5 April 2003. I will be attending the next AGM on 26 September and will see what they have to say about how they see the way forward, and how they have dealt with the issues that were raised last year. I was very disappointed with the internal fighting in 2008, and there are many areas of it I feel should be improved, but those changes do not come by slagging them off on a message board, but by trying to influence policy and hold the board to account on promises made. No doubt it will be making a few announcements as its own AGM nears to fulfil it's 2008 AGM commitments, like the new website recently launched that was promised last year, and I have noticed better communications with the membership in recent weeks after months of nothing, and this being a major priority assured to members at both the EGM and AGM of 2008. I am sure the upcoming AGM is purely coincidental in this regard!

The problem is of course that if talks break down at an advanced stage, we never get to hear anything about it, and therefore the poster looks rather foolish, despite posting real information passed to him in good faith at the time. Time will tell I suppose, but I find it hard to believe that if Murray stepping down was not leaked at all, an actual buyout has been leaked, allbeit with no details whatsoever other than "a consortium"

The problem with internet meddage board rumours is the success rate. Not saying anything about this one as I haven't seen it, nor am I having a go at VB, just generalising about the rumour mill, especially regarding things going on inside Ibrox. As we all know, when Murray wants something to be kept quiet, it usually is kept quiet. Any chance of saying a bit more about what is being said, Norris? Who is involved etc?

As I said before if anybody can show me any other example of where the club will publish official correspondence from any footballing body about disciplinary affairs, I would maybe have some sympathy with the stance taken in this thread. But it would seem usual to me that official letters from UEFA are not published by the club. I dont remember any fuss about the letter informing us of Lafferty's suspension not being published, or the letter from UEFA about the bus incident not being published. Perhaps the club just made these up too. I find it difficult to find anyone who criticises the running of our club more than me, perhaps I now have.

I remember now Frankie. Imagine me getting mixed up with the buses!! It was of course the Villarreal team bus, although nobody was injured thankfully. I thought even that was harsh on us given that it wasn't our home tie, and any trouble outside the ground would surely be the fault of the home side to police adequetely. The site of the Villarreal ground was a death trap, and the Spanish police were useless, but all that was obviously our fault for wishing to follow our team in the last 16 of the CL. If TBB was specifically mentioned in the initial action by UEFA, and their own appeal against their original decision was upheld, it could only be the facts relating to the original case that we were sanctioned for after the appeal. You cannot have an appeal that does not refer specifically to the events and charges of the original case. Therefore it is obvious that it was TBB that we were done for on appeal. Surely MF cannot be saying that although TBB was specifically mentioned in the original case that got thrown out, we were sanctioned after the appeal for another song, or just for discriminatory chanting without it referring to this particular song? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Dont want to get involved in your tet-a-tet here, but if I remember correctly the club were only fined �£14,000 at the time, and that was for a media bus window being smashed and not for discriminatory chanting. When the appeal by UEFA to their own decision was upheld and TBB was banned and we were warned as to our future conduct in this regard and made to make announcements etc, was there a further fine imposed?

I can understand the argument that International football sees club players testing themselves against a higher level of player and is therefore good for their development and their club should benefit from that. But the vast majority of International football that I watch is of a lower quality to club football. Scotland v Macedonia, Iceland or Norway in WC matches IMO would not give someone like Kevin Thomson any better footballing lessons than playing for Rangers in the CL. Against Holland yes, i'll concede that one. But matches agaisnt the top say 15 countries only come around rarely, so for the best part of international matches our good players will learn nothing except that our international management staff are useless. I would go so far as to say that the coaching skills of Burley, Butcher and Pressley are inferior to what they are getting at Auchenhowie, so it would be better for them to stay with their club. Is Bougherra really learning anything from playing for Algeria against Zambia?

Nope, add me to that list too.

I am guessing this is also to do with STV not showing big ITV national shows as mentioned earlier in the post by 26th. As a retort to STV probably costing ITV money by refusing to show their productions, ITV are sticking the fingers up right back at them by saying, if you are not paying for the rights, we are not showing your team. For once, I feel this would have been the same situation if it was them in the CL this season instead of us, as this has to do with ITV/STV politics and very little to do with CL football. The "Nationwide appeal" is the excuse being used by ITV, and while it is a very weak one, it matters not a jot to them because it is not the whole truth to start with. If STV had backed down in their cash wrangle over the national programming, ITV would not have taken this decision, IMO.

All clubs are consulted before the date changes are announced, so either we were happy with the published dates, or our protestations were ignored. I accept that it is not the SFA at fault, I just thought it would have been advisable to try to get the fixtures (if moved at all and we accept that away games will be moved) moved to the most suitable time slot available. Given that we have our next two fixtures on Saturday lunchtime slots, I would have hoped for a similar slot for a tough away fixture being played before our longest away trip in europe. I think it is systematic of how our club is run in some areas that we always appear only too willing to accept a rough deal.

I didn't say directives, did I? I said that the SFA/SPL were coming under increasing pressure to apply sanctions, available through existing age-old regulations, by the timmy mhedia, for our continual singing of TBB. Why do you feel it necessary for the club to publish a letter from UEFA showing verbatem the actual words "TBB is banned". What official letters from the SPL/SFA/UEFA have the club ever published on any matter in the past that would make the non-publication of this letter such a conspiracy? I, like many bears, loved belting out TBB, it was our anthem, and sung immediately after Follow Follow, it raised the roof off Ibrox at big games more than any other song. But our custodian capitulated totally in the UEFA courts, and was probably more than happy to have it banned after the appeal. Do your searches from the papers at the time, the UEFA archives, it was clear that the song was banned in any guise, even if we changed the words. Also extremely unfairly, the opposition are allowed to sing it to us, changing just two words, without fear of any questioning or discipline. However that is where we are, and is one of many complaints laid at the door of our now former chairman that we can do nothing about now. You must realise that Timmy is just waiting for this to return, to send off their letters in their droves to their friends in high places, and to get us done again. Look how quickly a routine dodgy penalty turned into a European wide debate about diving and a 2 game ban for Eduardo, they truly are the masters of PR and spin and have such influence we could only dream of. TBB is still alive in the pubs, clubs, on the buses and at the functions, but not at the matches. It is never coming back, of that I am certain, and whilst you are perfectly entitled to believe your conspiracy theories, they are completely without proper foundation i'm afraid.

Tannadice moved to the Sunday before our trip to Romania, so much for ensuring European clubs would be helped eh?

You have got to remember that this came about a year after the UEFA stuff, and because the fans, despite the pleas from the club, continued to sing it in domestic away games in particular, and we were in danger of having sanctions being applied to the club by the SPL/SFA, due to the continued pressure being applied by the timmy mhedia. It was at this point that a meeting took place between the club and a small number of influential RSC chairmen at Ibrox, where the club appealed to the chairmen to see if there was any way they could use their influence to avoid the club being sanctioned further domestically. The meting of over 60 RSC's took place within a couple of weeks at the WRC, chaired by Billy Montgomery of the Nithsdale, and I was there taking minutes. There was no "deal" as you have implied, as the club had nothing to offer. It was a meeting of Rangers supporters, concerned that if TBB did not stop, we would start to affect our chances of success domestically with points deductions etc being threatened by the SPL/SFA. What was promised was that the RSC's wouldn't be doing it alone, and that the club would pay for the leaflet campaign that was produced for the next week's game, and come out in full support of the initiative of "self-policing" which was agreed as the way forward, and which proved successful. I can see that the thread has moved onwards somewhat since you replied to my earlier post, but I wanted to take the time to explain what happened in 2007 in a little more detail, as I think you have picked it up wrong. I still have the minutes somewhere from the meeting.

Indeed mate, but of course in any event the change of Chairman probably supercedes anything intimated from Jim anyway, given that the new man may have other ideas in this area (we hope!!)